"Elites" in the sense that they can shape narratives, debates, and policies to a greater extent than John Q. Public or even Gladys Kravitz. This elite status is due to their skill set, their proximity to centers of power, their understanding of the rules of the game, and the (greatly diminished) social prestige of their profession.

__________________
Politics and governing demand compromise.

Barry Goldwater, "To Be A Conservative," speech in the US Senate, 16 September 1981.

"Elites" in the sense that they can shape narratives, debates, and policies to a greater extent than John Q. Public or even Gladys Kravitz. This elite status is due to their skill set, their proximity to centers of power, their understanding of the rules of the game, and the (greatly diminished) social prestige of their profession.

This sounds like the definition of a politician. Have to be honest with you Sigaba, most military people have a deep rooted disdain for politicians. Why? Mainly because they lie.

Who knew? Why have a engineering, science, or medical magnet school when you can have a social justice magnet school? It's just what todays young students need to succeed in America. When I was AD, I'd assist local high schools with their science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) programs. There was already a problem recruiting good teachers in those subject areas, but I never imagined we'd have classes that seek to "train students in seeing social problems from a radical anticapitalist perspective." Wonder if the Chinese schools are promoting these courses?

It's back-to-school season across the country. But in an increasing number of districts, "back to school" doesn't mean back to learning. Under the reign of social justice indoctrinators, academics are secondary to political agitation. Activism trumps achievement.

In Massachusetts, the John J. Duggan Middle School will open on August 25 with a new name and mission. It is now a "social justice magnet school." As a hiring advertisement for teachers explained earlier this year, the emphasis will be on "helping students develop the necessary skills to analyze and synthesize information and to generate empathy by looking at multiple sides of important issues facing the world, be that hunger, water quality, racial barriers, child labor or imbalance of power."

Concise writing, as you can see, is not on the social justice pedagogues' agenda.

Oh, and forget about memorizing times tables or mastering the scientific method. The new principal says the school's primary job is teaching "fairness." Duggan Middle School's junior lobbying factory is "serious about creating 21st century global citizens, and it begins with understanding who we are as members of each of those communities."

The ultimate goal of these social justice prep schools: creating left-wing political advocates.

At the Crescent Heights Social Justice Magnet School in Los Angeles, children will work on "action projects" tied to the "United Nations Millennium Development Goals." Students will spend the academic year transforming into "agents of change." Yes, they will learn language arts. But basic reading and writing are only a focus of the magnet school, the founders explain, because "we want our students to recognize injustice in their world or the world at large and be able to fully express their outrage, their plan of attack, their progress in this endeavor."

In Chicago, Ground Zero for social justice brainwashing, the Social Justice High School (SOJO), follows a similar mission. Activist teachers openly foster identity politics and systematically undermine individualism. Their specialties: "struggle and sacrifice." SOJO's mission statement sounds like a pot-addled Oberlin College freshman's — er, freshperson's — Sociology 101 term paper:

"Through collective community power, we commit to a conscious effort to overcome the intended historical obstacles that have been designed to disempower and divide our communities."

At the Paulo Freire Social Justice Charter School, also in Massachusetts, students won't learn math. They'll be taught "social justice math." (Freire was a Brazilian leftist who wrote a social justice teacher's Bible called "Pedagogy of the Oppressed.")

His acolytes explain the push for radicalization of math: "Math is an instrument for detailing social justice issues and developing critical consciousness." In the hands of progressive teachers, math "becomes an analytic tool to bring awareness to important world issues."

In other words: One plus one equals "That's unfair!"

New York City schools have been infested for years with city-funded math teachers who "train students in seeing social problems from a radical anticapitalist perspective," as City Journal's Sol Stern reported. As I've noted previously, the "Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers" guide rejects traditional white male patriarchal methods of teaching computation and statistics in favor of politically correct number-crunching.

State education codes mandate value neutrality in the classroom. But in schools of "social justice," every academic subject is a means to a "progressive" (anti-American, pro-collectivist, redistributive) ideological end. The radical transformation of K-12 classrooms into leftist agitation labs is embedded in the mission of countless teachers colleges and universities, which require social justice training or offer special certification in its indoctrination techniques.

These teaching institutions are pumping out generations of educators who cast themselves as leaders against "social struggle" — instead of facilitators of intellectual inquiry. Passing the most rigorous student standards in the world won't amount to squat as long as the overseers of public education exploit government schools as community organizing vehicles for captive tots, tweens and teens.

"Elites" in the sense that they can shape narratives, debates, and policies to a greater extent than John Q. Public or even Gladys Kravitz. This elite status is due to their skill set, their proximity to centers of power, their understanding of the rules of the game, and the (greatly diminished) social prestige of their profession.

Interesting but odd definition. Academia certainly has a different view on the world than those in uniform. That lends weight to your thought on the real question.

Since the "elites/journalists" can "shape narratives, debates and policies to a greater extent than JQP", the real question remains.

Quote:

So the question should not be about elites it should be about whether or not news providers are passing off activism as unbiased fact and if that is acceptable.

I'm not a fan of Fox News or Hannity. MSNBC is an abortion, CNN, well I've always had a thing for Robin Mead, but is non existent in my house. Instead of a trusted news source we have to scour the internet, see the same story reported 10 different ways and try to figure out the reality vs B.S.
People want to laugh and point fingers at conspiracy nuts and the uninformed but this is a direct reflection on the trustworthiness of the objectivity of the journalism community.

__________________
The hardest part about a zombie apocalypse will be pretending I'm not excited.

This too boggles my mind. I have a few lib friends on FB. They are always linking stories from HuffPo and others. It truly gives a good glimpse into their rationale and I agree you better know your enemy if you want to defeat him.

I called Obama's reelection long before the re-election campaign got off the ground by reading the posts by the left.

SOCNET even got a $100 donation from the loser I bet against. All that person did was read the news from the right's cheerleaders, and got swept up in what they perceived as a huge groundswell.

What does all this "reading" of Progressive posts tell you? Does any of it foretell that our children's math, science, reading, and geography skills will place them in the bottom percentile of the globe, thereby weakening America's future? Maybe those Progressive writings are actually showing us that a Utopia exists, but only Progressive ideals can save us?

What does all this "reading" of Progressive posts tell you? Does any of it foretell that our children's math, science, reading, and geography skills will place them in the bottom percentile of the globe, thereby weakening America's future? Maybe those Progressive writings are actually showing us that a Utopia exists, but only Progressive ideals can save us?

I'm not saying the mumbo jumbo on some of the Progressive agenda is right.

I'm merely backing up Mako's original statement that people should read posts by the progressive left.

As far as some of the schools in that article, no one makes anyone go to the Che Guarva Charter School of Social Justice or any other charter school. People have to apply to them and be accepted.

For example:

Quote:

At the Crescent Heights Social Justice Magnet School in Los Angeles, children will work on "action projects" tied to the "United Nations Millennium Development Goals." Students will spend the academic year transforming into "agents of change." Yes, they will learn language arts. But basic reading and writing are only a focus of the magnet school, the founders explain, because "we want our students to recognize injustice in their world or the world at large and be able to fully express their outrage, their plan of attack, their progress in this endeavor."

Magnet school. Have to choose to go there. For every goofball social justice magnet school there is a science and engineering magnet/charter school.

Wait, this ISN'T a public school? This is a private school? In other words, no public monies pay for this school and they aren't bound by DOE requirements? This is like the local Catholic school, for example?

Wait, this ISN'T a public school? This is a private school? In other words, no public monies pay for this school and they aren't bound by DOE requirements? This is like the local Catholic school, for example?

You know the answer to this already. They are semi-public schools, began in the inner cities as I recall as an answer to shitty falling apart public schools that were being administered by the government about as responsibly as a hog farmer manages the environment with a million gallons of hog shit.

They get public money, but they have to produce much better results than "public" schools else their funding is yanked.

But you still have to choose to go to one. They can't open "Commie School for Commies" next door to you and make your kid go to it. Your kid still busses to PS145 or wherever.

[QUOTE=KidA;1058413416]
They get public money, but they have to produce much better results than "public" schools else their funding is yanked.
QUOTE]

Magnets are public schools. They get to select their students. As they can select their student body and they focus on students with relatively high achievement in science or the arts, they typically show better results on the standard measures. (The quality of which is a topic for another discussion.)

In my experience, they still teach a whole lot of nonsense. They do a poor job of turning out students who are well rounded, have anything approaching an accurate view of basic history, or have learned the basics of reasoning, especially moral reasoning.

The developments in charter schools are more encouraging. Some states have good charter school laws. They are still public schools in the sense that they have to be approved in order to get (lower per student) public funds, but in the states with better regulations, charters use their own curricula and can hire and fire teachers who do not agree with their philosophy. The charters offer much more variety than the magnets.

Really advanced school districts in states with good regulations do two more things--they accommodate people who home school, letting them take individual high school classes if necessary or enroll in online academies via their local school district (which itself may be using blended learning), and, at the bleeding edge of reform, strap the money to the kids so that parents can use it to send their children to private schools if they wish. For poor families, transportation is a big issue in accessing school choice.

The elephant under the rug in all of this is the College Board. It is increasingly politicized and it controls the high school curriculum for the better students via the course content required to prepare for the AP tests. Going into college with a lot of AP credits can save a semester or more of expense. It produces sample essay topics and readings that are used in high schools everywhere and a bunch of the ones that I am familiar with are so slanted that they required extensive deprogramming over the dinner table.

Magnets are public schools. They get to select their students. As they can select their student body and they focus on students with relatively high achievement in science or the arts, they typically show better results on the standard measures. ...They do a poor job of turning out students who are well rounded, have anything approaching an accurate view of basic history, or have learned the basics of reasoning, especially moral reasoning.

So pretty much, they invite kids who have potential, subject them to an ideological mind fucking, and destroy that potential on the government dime. I see nothing nefarious about that.

__________________
"Bureaucracy always runs out of control and creates abuses...but without some regulations, people are just going to shit in your meat." --MakoZeroSix

Question; what is there to know about them, required to "defeat" them?

I understand the concept, but I don't think it buys anything, as we lack the media resources to counter their incessant propaganda and brainwash these people back into something resembling "America."

Their beliefs are a religion, a faith; to replace the Christianity that has been demonized and denigrated. You can no more convince them to drop their liberal beliefs with words than you could convert the durka-durkas from Islam. They need something to fill that God shaped hole in their psyche. They cling to their faith as a drowning man clings to a life buoy. They will get angry and defensively shut down anytime you seriously challenged their beliefs.

Obviously, there are always exceptions, but I think you'll find the bulk of humanity behaving as I described. S/F.....Ken M

Answer: it's not about "buying" something. It's not about changing their minds.

You're correct that the right lacks the media resources to counter their message. They tried with Fox News and wound up embarassing themselves with things like "Terrorist Fist Bump" and an endless string of innane attempts at propagandizing. Let's face it- the left just does a better job (ie, people who are all creative and artsy and good at communicating with others tend to be liberal)

Hence the need for understanding their views and how they leverage IO operations. When you are short manpower, intel is a good substitute.

plus there is the added benefit of their outrageous opinions keeping me conservative on most issues. When I read things like Fox and Drudge the Washington Times it makes me question those beliefs.

But IDK where you are going with this "God shaped hole" thing. There are plenty of people who get along fine with no Christian God in their lives, thank you. And happen to be conservative.

There also are a ton of people all up in Christ's business who are liberal as fuck. Ever talk to a Quaker?

Oh, and to address this magnet school hysteria- it's a fucking magnet school, folks. You don't have to send your kid there, you know. If enough parents throw the bullshit card, they'll be gone soon enough.

__________________

Quote:

You know they show up with the helmets and the black masks and they have clubs and everything...ANTIFAAAA!!!

You're correct that the right lacks the media resources to counter their message. They tried with Fox News and wound up embarassing themselves with things like "Terrorist Fist Bump" and an endless string of innane attempts at propagandizing. Let's face it- the left just does a better job (ie, people who are all creative and artsy and good at communicating with others tend to be liberal)

Not only is the Left/Libs better at it, additionally they simply lie in their coverage. Or even more insidious: don't draw attention/report on their "favored" apparatchiks. Ms. Atkissons's comments below are spot on IMO.

ATTKISSON: JOURNALISM HAS 'GONE BACKWARDS' SINCE DAYS OF WOODWARD, BERNSTEIN

On Sunday’s broadcast of ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” fill-in moderator Martha Raddatz asked how journalism has evolved since the time of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s role in the Watergate scandal that resulted in the downfall of then-President Richard Nixon.

Sharyl Attkisson, formerly an investigative reporter with CBS News, where she resigned after becoming disenfranchised with the editorial direction of CBS, suggested that had the Watergate scandal happened today, Nixon might have skated if he employed the tactics President Barack Obama’s is using in handling his controversies.

“I think we have gone backwards since that time where we felt empowered as journalists. And I’d like to think what would happen today during a Nixon-type scandal,” Attkisson said. “Nixon would basically refuse to turn over tapes to Congress. His aides would refuse to testify to Congress or would take the Fifth [Amendment] or lie to Congress with a fair amount of impunity. Woodward and Bernstein would be controversial-ized on social media by special and political interests … then, at the end, Nixon would go on a popular late-night comedy show, during which time, he would humorously refer to his attackers as people that were political witch hunters who believe in Area 51-type of conspiracies.” (Bold/Underline added by SATCOM)

Here's another good example of why to read liberal publications. Today's main article in Mother Jones explores how a former cop helps the Broward county public defender's office expose police abuses. You know, police abuses. Something a lot of very conservative members of this site have problem with. You'd never see something like this on Fox. And it's pretty well written, quite frankly: